STANDARDISATION OF DNA TECHNOLOGY AND
THE EXCHANGE OF DNA ANALYSIS RESULTS

(21380)

8937/00

Draft Council Resolution on the standardisation of DNA technology and the exchange of DNA analysis results.

Legal base:



Department:

Home Office

Basis of consideration:

Minister's letters to Lord Tordoff of 29 November 2000 and 18 January 2001

Previous Committee Report:

HC 23-xxviii (1999-2000), paragraph 8 (1 November 2000)

To be discussed in Council:

15-16 March 2001

Committee's assessment:

Politically important

Committee's decision:

Not cleared; further information requested

Background

5.1 This draft Council Resolution encourages
all Member States to adopt, as a minimum, the same seven DNA markers
for forensic DNA profiling so that intelligence can be shared
for comparative purposes in the fight against crime. It was originally
put forward by the Finnish Presidency following reservations from
several representatives at the Police Co-operation Working Group
about an earlier proposal for a framework decision on the same
subject (not deposited). Most of the reservations were concerned
with the binding nature of the proposed measure.

5.2 When we considered the document in November,
we asked for clarification on two aspects of it, and maintained
the scrutiny reserve. The Minister of State at the Home Office
(Mrs Barbara Roche) has now written twice to our sister Committee
in the House of Lords, addressing our questions among a number
of others from that Committee, which had invited views from several
organisations and from the Data Protection Commissioner.

The Minister's response

 Data protection

5.3 Our main concern was the lack of any
provision about data protection in the body of the Resolution,
given the inherently personal nature of DNA information. We asked
for reassurance that the information to be exchanged would be
adequately protected. In response, the Minister emphasises, in
both her letters, that the aim of the document is to define common
markers for DNA profiling. In her letter of 18 January, she says:

"Clearly data protection is important but the
Draft Council Resolution is not seeking to alter the basis for
data protection or the standards governing the disclosure of DNA
material."

5.4 On the related question of whether the
Government accepted the need for some form of agreement setting
out the relevant data protection standards before DNA analysis
results could be exchanged ( a recommendation of the Data Protection
Commissioner), the Minister says (again in her January letter):

"This is a question that needs to be addressed
independently from the Draft Council Resolution  since
a number of countries already have DNA databases which use common
markers and the conditions already exist under which DNA information
can be exchanged. The current position is to rely upon the Data
Protection Act 1998 and the other relevant documents listed in
the recitals of this Draft Council Resolution."

 The involvement of Europol

5.5 We had asked the Minister to explain
the anomaly whereby, despite her statement that no decision had
been made about the role of Europol in the context of the Resolution,
the standard form annexed to the document assumed its involvement.
With her November letter, the Minister encloses a later version
of the document in which the reference to Europol on the form
has been removed. She tells us that the text has also been revised
to clarify the situation, explaining:

"This Draft Council Resolution does not seek
to extend the powers or remit of Europol  merely to consider
whether facilitating the exchange of DNA profiles would fall within
the remit agreed for it."

In addition, in her January letter, the Minister
undertakes to bring to the attention of the scrutiny Committees
any proposal to place a server at Europol for the sharing of data
among Member States.

Conclusion

5.6 We thank the Minister for sending
us the revised version of this proposal, which clarifies the role
of Europol.

5.7 We do not, however, think that she
has grasped the nature of our concern about data protection. We
accept that the aim of the document is to encourage standardisation
of markers, and that it does not involve any change to data protection
rules. However, its aim is to enable the exchange of information,
and the uncertainty about the applicability of the current rules
leaves us far from confident that this will be adequately protected.
Moreover, we do not understand why the Minister considers that
the question of relevant data protection standards needs to be
addressed independently from this measure. In our view, the document
itself should identify appropriate minimum standards of protection
for the exchange of DNA analysis results. We ask the Minister
to explain the Government's position.

5.8 Meanwhile, we do not clear the document.

USE IN STOCKFEEDING OF SUBSTANCES HAVING
A HORMONAL OR THYROSTATIC ACTION AND BETA-AGONISTS

(21460)

10060/00

COM(00) 320

Draft Directive amending Council Directive 96/22/EC concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfeeding of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and beta-agonists.

Legal base:

Article 152(4)(b) EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting

Document originated:

24 May 2000

Forwarded to the Council:

3 July 2000

Deposited in Parliament:

25 July 2000

Department:

Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

Basis of consideration:

SEM of 20 January 2001

Previous Committee Report:

HC 23-xxix (1999-2000), paragraph 8 (15 November 2000)

To be discussed in Council:

Following receipt of European Parliament opinion

Committee's assessment:

Politically important

Committee's decision:

Not cleared; further information requested

Background

6.1 Council Directive 96/22/EC[12]
regulates the use in stockfeeding within the Community of certain
substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic[13]
action and beta-agonists,[14]
and the main effect of the complex series of provisions described
in paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2 of our Report of 15 November 2000 is
to ban the use of hormone growth promoters in food-producing animals,
and hence in meat, except for therapeutic purposes or zootechnical
treatment.[15]

6.2 Broadly speaking, these restrictions
also apply to animal products imported from third countries. This
in turn led to a dispute with the United States and Canada, on
which the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Dispute Settlement body
ruled in February 1998 that the steps taken by the Community were
in breach of the WTO's rules, essentially because they had been
based on general studies rather than the particular risks thought
to arise from the use of growth hormones.

6.3 As a result of that ruling, the Commission
initiated assessments of six hormonal substances (oestradiol 17,
testosterone, progesterone, trenblone acetate, zeranol and melengestrol
acetate) whose administration for animal growth promotion purposes
is prohibited by Directive 96/22/EC. The Scientific Committee
on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health (SCVPH) concluded
in April 1999 that the use of these hormones in cattle for growth
promotion purposes posed a risk to consumers, and it also took
the view that oestradiol 17 has to be considered as a complete
carcinogen, as it exerts both tumour-initiating and tumour-promoting
effects. However, the UK's own Veterinary Products Committee (VPC)
advised in October 1999 that the scientific evidence in the SCVPH
report did not support the Community ban on the use of hormonal
growth promoters. Concern was also expressed about certain conclusions
reached by the SCVPH.

6.4 This led the SCVPH in turn to review
the position in the light of the VPC's comments, and of observations
from the Commission's own Committee on Veterinary Medical Products
(CVMP) and the Joint Food and Agriculture Organisation/World Health
Organisation Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). However,
in a final opinion issued on 3 May 2000, the SCVPH concluded that
"this recent information did not provide convincing data
and arguments demanding revision of the conclusions drawn in the
opinion of the SCVPH of 30 April 1999".

6.5 Against this background, the Commission
proposed in May 2000 that oestradiol 17 and its derivatives should
be banned in food-producing animals, and its use allowed in non-food-producing
animals only where there is no alternative treatment. The five
other growth-promoting hormones would continue to be prohibited
for use for growth-promoting purposes, but would still be available
for certain therapeutic and zootechnical purposes, subject to
strict controls. The position would, however, be provisional,
pending the availability of more complete scientific evidence.

6.6 As we noted in our earlier Report, the
Minister of State at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food (Baroness Hayman) told us that the Government does not consider
that the scientific case for a ban has been made, and hence does
not support this proposal. She added that this position will remain
unchanged unless new scientific evidence is made available for
full evaluation by independent UK experts, but that the UK will
nevertheless continue to fulfil its Community obligations by enforcing
such proposals as may be agreed by the Council. In the meantime,
the Minister went on to say that prohibiting the use of oestradiol
17 for zootechnical purposes would create problems for veterinarians,
and that the Commission has said it will draw up a list of alternative
treatments before the Directive comes into force. She commented
that, until it has done so, it will not be possible to tell the
effect of this proposal, and that a Regulatory Impact Assessment
cannot therefore be provided at this stage. However, she suggested
that the costs of removing oestradiol 17 "are not likely
to be substantial".

6.7 In the conclusion to our Report, we
said that, whilst we accepted that there was room for legitimate
differences in scientific interpretation, it was disturbing that
there should apparently be such a gulf between the views expressed
by the SCVPH and those of other expert bodies such as the VPC
over oestradiol 17. We therefore asked whether these differences
were simply over the appropriate action to be taken, or if they
extended to the fundamental question of whether oestradiol 17
should be regarded as a carcinogen. Pending clarification of this
point, and of the Government providing a Regulatory Impact Assessment,
we said that we were not clearing the document.

Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 20 January
2001

6.8 In her Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum
of 20 January 2001, the Minister confirms that the issue arising
on oestradiol 17 is essentially whether or not it should be regarded
as a carcinogen. She says that a sub-group of the VPC found evidence
of a link between overall meat and fat consumption and the occurrence
of common cancers, but that a link with small traces of hormones
has not been directly examined. However, she adds that the tumours
are found in both men and women, and occur widely in countries
where hormonal growth promoters are not permitted. The sub-group
also concluded that the likely levels of consumer exposure to
oestradiol 17 resulting from their use in growth promoters were
"very low in comparison with the amounts of these hormones
produced naturally by the bodies of some people". She reiterates
that the Government believes that policy in areas such as this
must be underpinned by the best possible scientific advice, that
it continues to take the view that the SCVPH has not answered
any of the scientific arguments put forward by eminent groups
such as the CVMP and JECFA, and that, until the SCVPH does so,
the Government cannot support this proposal.

6.9 The Minister has also now provided us
with a Regulatory Impact Assessment, but, as the Commission has
yet to come forward with a list of alternative treatments and
more precise details of these, it does little more than confirm
that, although the costs are not thought to be substantial, it
is not possible to predict the effect of the proposal on the UK.
The Assessment does, however, make the point that alternatives
to the three authorised veterinary medicinal products containing
oestradiol 17 have been identified by the Veterinary Medicines
Directorate, but that these are considered to be inferior. The
veterinary profession in the UK would therefore strongly resist
the removal of these three products. The Assessment also says
that the Government will consult on the eventual implementation
of the proposed Directive "when it is transposed into national
legislation, at which point details of alternative treatments
should be available".

Conclusion

6.10 Whilst we are grateful to the Minister
for this further information, we have two main concerns about
this proposal. First, we understand the Minister's view that policy
should be underpinned by the best possible scientific advice.
The problem arises, of course, in cases such as this where that
advice is not clear-cut, and policy makers thus have to choose
between conflicting advice. In this case, we simply note that
the United Kingdom places greater weight on the views of the Veterinary
Products Committee and others than on the reservations expressed
by the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to
Public Health.

6.11 Secondly, we remain concerned that
the Commission has yet to come forward with details of alternative
treatments, and in particular about the suggestion in the Regulatory
Impact Assessment that these details may not be available until
the Directive is transposed into national legislation. Whatever
view one might take of the basic case for banning oestradiol 17,
it does seem essential that the practical implications of any
decision to do so are clearly understood, and we would like to
know whether the Government will be pressing the Commission to
provide its information on alternative treatments before
the proposal is agreed. In the meantime, we are not clearing the
proposal.

7.1 In June 1998, the Cardiff European Council
invited all relevant formations of the Council to establish their
own strategies for integrating environmental issues and sustainable
development into their respective policy areas. Strategies have
already been presented by the Agriculture, Transport and Energy
Councils. In June 1999, the Cologne European Council called upon
the Council to report to it in 2000 on the integration of environmental
issues and sustainable development in the policy areas of General
Affairs, Economic and Financial Questions, and Fisheries. At the
Helsinki European Council last year, the Council was requested
to present a comprehensive strategy for environmental integration
and sustainable development to the Gothenburg European Council
in June 2001. This would bring together the reports from all sectoral
Councils.

The document

7.2 This document is a Communication from
the Commission setting out its proposals for integrating environmental
issues with economic policy. It was considered by ECOFIN at the
end of last year. ECOFIN reported on the subject to the Nice European
Council in September.

7.3 The Commission notes the commitment
of the Lisbon European Council in March 2000 to the Community
becoming "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based
economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with
more and better jobs and greater social cohesion". It notes
also that the Amsterdam Treaty required the integration of environmental
protection into Community policies in order to achieve sustainable
development. The Commission points to existing Community "tools",
in particular the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines, as a means
of gradual, but credible, progress towards integrating environmental
concerns into economic policies. It argues that one of the reasons
why environmental considerations are insufficiently incorporated
in economic policy formulation is that economic policy is essentially
concerned with macro- economic stability and the functioning of
markets, whilst many environmental problems arise precisely because
there are no markets in environmental goods and services. As a
result there is often a mismatch between private and public or
social costs. It identifies the kinds of instruments which could
be used to create markets or improve the functioning of them.
It argues that market-based instruments can provide more flexible
and efficient ways of improving environmental protection than
more traditional regulatory means. However, the choice of policy
instrument should always be tailored to the precise environmental
problem to be addressed.

7.4 The Communication discusses the risk
that adoption by the Community of a stronger environmental aspect
in its economic policies will reduce its international competitiveness.
It recognises that a gradual approach will be necessary but believes
that fears of reduced international competitiveness may be exaggerated.
It notes that international efforts to tackle certain environmental
problems, such as climate change, require other developed countries
to act similarly. It notes also that the majority of goods and
services produced in the Community are consumed there and that
existing differences in tax structures suggest that these are
only one of many relevant factors for international investment
decisions.

7.5 The Communication also notes that the
strategy should include appropriate structural methods, such as
retraining and other support for workers in affected industries,
if moves to improve environmental integration are to remain socially
and politically acceptable.

7.6 The Communication says that the Commission
will intensify its effort to devise a detailed set of indicators
for the Community economy on the use and effectiveness of economic
instruments on environmentally-harmful policies and measures,
on the value of the environment, and on "environmental"
industry.

7.7 The Commission's conclusions include
the following recommendations:

there should be "a transparent, gradual,
credible approach" based on analysis of the scientific evidence
and the cost and benefits of action or lack of action;

integration of environmental issues with economic
policy should be consistent with the strategy for sustainable
development which the European Council intends to adopt in June
2001;

examination of the environmental impacts of economic
activity should be integrated into the process of multi-lateral
surveillance of structural reform;

the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines should fully
incorporate the objectives of environmental integration;

reviews of the quality and sustainability of
public finances should include an assessment of the efficiency
of economic instruments in achieving their environmental objectives;
and

there should be an increased use of an appropriate
mix of market-based instruments and regulations.

7.8 The Conclusions also call for the Council
to examine the positive and negative environmental impacts of
national taxation systems. The Commission says that this will
"help in setting priorities for environmentally sound fiscal
reforms". It calls for a co-ordinated approach within the
Community to the implementation of the "polluter pays"
principle, whether by taxation or by other market instruments,
to help address concerns about competitiveness between Member
States. With that in mind, it also calls for the use of qualified
majority voting for environmental taxation.

The Government's view

7.9 In her Explanatory Memorandum of 16
January 2001, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie
Johnson) notes that much environmental policy is agreed at European
level, including many air and water quality issues. She says that
"the Government believes that sound economic analysis and
an approach focussed on outcomes are important in order to ensure
the EU formulates policies which are consistent with sustainable
development and that the costs of policies are more than offset
by the benefits. ... The Government would be in favour of the
Commission bringing forward guidelines on the standard methodology
to be used when carrying out cost-benefit appraisals." The
Minister notes that the Inter-Governmental Conference at Nice
in December rejected any extension of qualified majority voting
into taxation matters. She says that the Government has opposed
previous proposals for the harmonisation of environmental taxes
under the "polluter pays" principle and that, for those
reasons, the Government would be "cautious about the proposed
examination by the Council of the positive and negative environmental
impacts of national taxation systems".

Conclusion

7.10 The Commission's paper seems to
us to present a useful analysis of the possible approaches to
incorporating environmental considerations into economic policies.
We note the intention to work within the existing structures for
economic co-ordination (in particular, the broad economic policy
guidelines) and the new open method of co-ordination at all levels,
as endorsed by the Lisbon European Council last year. In that
regard we note also the Government's caution about the proposal
that the Council should examine the positive and negative environmental
impacts of national taxation systems. Whilst we fully understand
the Government's position that taxation should remain primarily
a matter for Member States, with all Community decisions being
on the basis of unanimity, it does not seem to us to follow that
a comparative analysis would put that approach at risk, particularly
in the light of the endorsement of unanimity in tax matters resulting
from the recent Inter Governmental Conference. Indeed, such a
study would seem to us to be consistent with the new open method
of co-ordination and learning from best practice agreed by the
Lisbon European Council.

7.11 We note that this Communication
has already been discussed by ECOFIN, and a report has been made
by ECOFIN to the Nice European Council. We are concerned that
the Communication was published in September but we received no
Explanatory Memorandum about it before it was considered by ECOFIN.
Nor have we seen the subsequent ECOFIN report to the Nice European
Council. We do not know what views ECOFIN put to the European
Council, including any conclusions it may have reached on the
Commission's recommendations. The Minister offers no explanation
for her failure to provide us with an Explanatory Memorandum before
ECOFIN considered this document. We now request that she does
so without delay and that she provides us with a copy of the ECOFIN
report to the Nice Council. We would also like to know whether
or not it is intended that the Council should undertake the proposed
study of the positive and negative environmental impacts of national
taxation systems. We ask the Minister also to explain the processes
which the Council will now follow in compiling a comprehensive
report on this subject, taking account of the reports from sectoral
Councils. Meanwhile, we do not clear the document.

MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR GRANTING AND WITHDRAWING
REFUGEE STATUS

(21792)

11622/00

COM(00) 578

Draft Directive on minimum standards for procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status.

8.1 Nearly two years ago, we cleared the
Commission's working paper, Towards common standards for asylum
procedures.[16]Following discussions on that paper in
the Council and in the European Parliament, and comments from
a number of NGOs, the Commission has drawn up this draft Directive.
It is designed to introduce minimum standards for granting or
withdrawing refugee status, as provided for in Article 63(1)(d)
EC. Under the terms of the Treaty, measures which set such minimum
standards should be adopted by May 2004.

8.2 As the legal base falls within Title
IV of the EC Treaty, the UK has three months from the formal publication
of the proposal in which to decide whether to opt in to the measure
(in accordance with the provisions in the Protocol on the position
of the United Kingdom and Ireland now annexed to the EC Treaty
and the Treaty on European Union).

The document

8.3 The Commission's explanatory memorandum
states that, although the proposal sets minimum standards, it
will not require Member States to apply uniform procedures. Moreover,
as this is the first measure on asylum procedures, derogations
from certain rules are allowed. The draft Directive is restricted
to those claiming refugee status under the Geneva Convention,[17]
and does not cover those seeking protection from treatment prohibited
by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[18]

8.4 The proposal covers the procedures for
examining, accepting and rejecting asylum claims. It consists
of three sets of provisions:

procedural guarantees for asylum applications.
Two of the most important of these are
that the applicant must have the right to appeal against a decision
in the first instance, and that he must be informed at key points
of the procedure, in a language which he understands, of his legal
position. Others cover procedures for personal interviews, and
criteria for detention. Specific guarantees are set out for persons
with special needs, such as unaccompanied minors.

minimum requirements for the decision-making
process. These include the various authorities
needed to ensure a fair system; the training and access to advice
required by decision-making personnel; investigative standards
for decision-making; and the need for full reasons for adverse
decisions to be stated.

standards for the application of certain concepts
and practices. These address such concepts
as "inadmissible applications", "manifestly unfounded
applications", "safe country of origin" and "safe
third country". If Member States choose to apply any of these,
they will be expected to follow the common framework  including
definitions, criteria and timescales  laid down in the
document.

The Government's view

8.5 The Minister of State at the Home Office
(Mrs Barbara Roche) has submitted two Explanatory Memoranda on
this document, a preliminary one in December, supplemented by
another in January which contains a more detailed analysis of
the Government's position following an exchange of views in the
relevant Council working group.

8.6 In both Memoranda, the Minister welcomes
the draft Directive as the first major step towards establishing
minimum standards for asylum policy and practice across the Union.
She considers that more consistent treatment of asylum seekers
will lead to reduced secondary movement between Member States.

8.7 In the first Explanatory Memorandum,
she says:

"The Government considers that there may be
scope for a more harmonised approach than that proposed, particularly
in the areas of setting time limits for the asylum process and
in terms of a common approach to the designation of safe third
countries and safe countries of origin.

"The Government also considers that measures
under Article 63 TEC should ideally include those seeking subsidiary
forms of international protection as well as those applying for
asylum within the terms of the 1951 Geneva Convention. It is expected
that this issue, and those issues raised above amongst others,
will be the subject of detailed discussions in the relevant Council
working groups."

8.8 The Minister expands on the Government's
position in the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum, telling
us:

"The Government is confident that the UK will
be able to meet the principles set down in the draft Directive.
However, the Government is concerned to ensure that the draft
Directive does not inadvertently create delays which would obstruct
our domestic drive towards faster and more efficient procedures.
We expect to press for minimum standards which, inter alia, enable
rapid resolution of asylum claims, which we consider to be to
the benefit of all parties concerned.

"On the basis of the current text, the key areas
of concern to the Government are as follows:

Early stage procedures

"Articles 7-9 deal with the provision of information,
interviews, advice and representation. These articles provide
that in most circumstances applicants should, inter alia, have
an opportunity for a personal interview, and a right to receive
information in a language which he or she understands. In both
cases, there is a potential for a delay which we consider could
be avoided without any reduction in standards.

"On interviewing, the Government's view is that
there are circumstances in which it is not necessarily appropriate
to interview an applicant, for example where the applicant is
too young or mentally unfit, or where the applicant has failed
to attend an appointment for interview without good reason. The
Directive appears to allow for this but may need some further
clarification.

"On the provision of information, the Immigration
and Nationality Directorate currently produces a range of documentary
information for asylum seekers in English only. We accept that
it would be desirable as far as possible to use a language which
the applicant understands. But again there is the potential for
delays and, in this case, for a considerable increase in costs.
We judge that the most practicable solution would be to provide
generic information about procedures in a variety of languages,
whilst continuing to provide individual letters about the status
of a particular application in the language of the Member State
only. We are already in the process of producing explanatory leaflets
in 62 languages on asylum procedures".

Detention

"Article 11 of the draft Directive deals with
the criteria for detaining asylum seekers. The Government will
be seeking to clarify the scope and purpose of the Article. The
Government believes that there are circumstances in which detention
is justified for the purpose of establishing the identity of applicants
and dealing with their asylum claim. This appears to be envisaged
by Article 11 but is likely to require amendment to put the matter
beyond doubt and to ensure that the procedures apply to applicants
seeking to remain in the country as well as those seeking to enter.
Similarly the article appears to omit the possibility of detention
at the end of the process in order to effect removal; and this
too requires clarification.

Appeals

"Chapter V of the draft Directive deals with
appeals procedures. The Government has two key concerns about
this chapter.

"Firstly, Article 33 appears to give suspensive
effect to appeals against removals to other Member States in admissibility
cases (in other words, cases in which another Member State is
considered to be responsible for considering the application,
a decision which would currently be made under the terms of the
Dublin Convention). There is currently a non-suspensive right
of appeal in the UK in such circumstances, unless a human rights
appeal is pending ... and a certificate has not been issued by
the Secretary of State .... that the allegation is manifestly
unfounded. The introduction of a suspensive right appeal could
add to the existing obstacles to transfers under the Dublin Convention...
We will be pressing for amendments .... to ensure that the Dublin
Convention and its successor are able to operate as intended.

"Secondly, the Government has some concerns
about the time limits proposed for the appeal process. In particular,
Article 34 sets a minimum time limit of 20 working days in which
an applicant must submit grounds of appeal in ordinary substantive
cases. We consider that this could add an unacceptable delay to
the process in many cases and we will be pressing for the necessary
amendments in order to ensure that both the applicant and the
appeal authorities are required to act swiftly."

8.9 The Minister informs us that it is unlikely
that a text of the proposal will be presented for adoption in
Council until the latter half of 2001.

Conclusion

8.10 We support the Minister in her welcome
for this draft Directive as the first major step towards establishing
minimum standards for asylum policy and practice across the European
Union. We recognise that negotiations are just beginning and many
issues need detailed discussion in a range of fora. At this stage,
therefore, we merely urge the Minister not to make speed an overwhelming
priority. While we share her concern that the United Kingdom's
domestic procedures should be made faster and more efficient,
we consider that a proper balance must be struck between the avoidance
of delay and the thorough and fair examination of cases.

8.11 At a later stage of negotiations,
we may wish to recommend this proposal for debate. We therefore
ask the Minister for a progress report in good time before any
Council at which political agreement may be sought. We also ask
to be informed about whether or not the Government proposes to
opt in to the proposal. In the meantime we do not clear the document.